A Critique to Fundamental Differences Hypothesis

Jing Ding

doi:10.5539/ijel.v7n1p137

Abstract

Chomsky’s Theory of Universal Grammar was proposed in response to “the logical problem of language acquisition”, that is, how children come to acquire L1with ease and complete success despite the insufficiency of the L1 stimulus. Chomsky attributes the phenomenon to the Language Acquisition Device or UG inherited by human brain. Since “the logical problem” exists in SLA. What is the role of LAD or UG in SLA? Or, is UG accessible to L2 learners? This is a question that has attracted SLA researchers since the establishment of UG theory. This paper gives some own analysis of one of the most influential theory of UG accessibility—Fundamental Difference Hypothesis, which belongs to the no-access views and points out its weakness by discussing its theoretical explanation as well as the supporting evidence. To be more specific, this paper will discuss mainly 2 points, one is the nine fundamental characters of foreign language learning and the other is its theoretical explanation related to the Critical Period Hypothesis.

Highlights

In the course of research into the L1 acquisition devices, the researchers will be amazed by the phenomenon that the input of child’s L1 cannot be a predeterminate factor for the ultimate attainment, which is called “the poverty of the stimulus”
Chomsky attributes the phenomenon to the Language Acquisition Device or Universal Grammar (UG) inherited by human brain
It seems that child has the language knowledge which cannot be acquired by observing or imitating adults’ speeches. (Baker & McCarthy, 1981; Hornstein & Lightfoot, 1981) This phenomenon was called by David Lightfoot “the logical problem of language acquisition”, with its core “how can a language be acquired?” In response to the “logical problem”, 1980s, Chomsky proposed the “language acquisition devices” (LAD)

Summary

Introduction

In the course of research into the L1 acquisition devices, the researchers will be amazed by the phenomenon that the input of child’s L1 cannot be a predeterminate factor for the ultimate attainment, which is called “the poverty of the stimulus”. Cannot explain the procedure and the success-failure circumstances of language acquisition, UG provides a new prospective for researching into this field, the core of which is whether the L2 learners make use of UG’s principles and parameters in L2 learning. For the indirect accessibility hypothesis, the researchers hold that UG grammar functions indirectly in L2 learning, mainly through L1. L2 cannot be acquired only by making use of the universal cognitive strategy This point is totally different from the “no accessibility hypothesis”, which denies the function of UG and attributes the L2 acquisition to the cognitive ability. Bley-Vroman points out nine fundamental differences between L1 and L2, and proposed “Fundamental Differences Hypothesis” He totally denies UG’s function upon adults’ foreign language learning. His hypothesis will be what the author analyze and discuss

Fundamental Differences Hypothesis

A definition of possible grammar: a Universal Grammar

The weakness of “Fundamental Differences Hypothesis

The Theory Cannot Hold Water

The Explanation of the Role of Native Language Is Confusing

Conclusion